There are a few establishments in both the manufacture and retail of sweet tasting (and cheap) liquors that I have a role in monitoring. I'm not one
that approves of selling intoxicants to minors, simple.

I am hearing you, MA! If the youngsters could just learn to love a good ale, lager, or stout the world would be a better place. AND, over here in the
US we have a problem with the kids and 'Bud light' and Zima.

If I had the money to buy designer shoes, I would not, because designer shoes are pretty much something that stupid lazy people waste thier money on.

Americans are stupid and lazy. And the part about working hard 8 hours a day building helicopters made me laugh. Those helicopters are being
increrasingly built overseas by non Americans. Your knee jerk patriotism is based on oideals of the past, TC wake up and smell the 21st century.

And, for your information, those weapons that you so worry could be slipped through our ill guarded borders, doesnt that make something in your brain
snap there? Hmmmmm?

Things being smuggled through our borders......sigh. Dont you get it? Our ILL GUARDED BORDERS! They wouldnt be so #ing ill guarded if our soldiers
were at HOME guarding them and not off in some mid east #hole trying to enstil a peace that has not nor will ever exist! The question isnt going and
chasing invisible WMD and psider farts in Saddams basements, its about bringing our stretched too thin military home to guard and lock down our own
leaky borders! If we brought the soldiers home, if we started using our military here to patrol our coastlines, our land borders, ect, that wouldnt be
a #ing problem, and we would not only save money, but LIVES doing so.

The soldiers place is HERE at home defending AMERICA, not Iraq, not Europe, not Korea, Not Saudi, Not Israel, Bosnia, NONE OF THESE PLACES. If we had
military here at home defending and patroling THESE borders they wopuldnt be getting # in. Are you to blind to this simply and most OBVIOUS fact?

And springer, no, every avenue had not been exhausted on UN resolution1441. There still was the poil for food program that could have been cdut off,
as well as heavier UN sanctions for any of Saddams trading partners. There was more that could have been done, and the UN inspections were not
completed, the deadlines were not even up, and we had already built up. This is obvious to anyone.

Are you so limited in your thinking that violent force is the only thing that comes to mind under serious concequences?

I'm done with this thread. I've clearly stated my facts and yet the orifices in the WMD cult refuse to see that, hey, those ARE facts.

It makes it easier to argue with someone if you totally ignore their side of it I guess.

If anyone would care to debate this I would be happy to go head to head, but I suspect that's far too frightening for you, since your arguments are
weak and disjointed.

TC: "All it took to kill a few thousand a couple years ago was a handful of semi-trained terrorist pilots and some box cutters. It is a very myopic
and unimaginative view that would indicate that because the U.S. is out of Iraq's missile reach, we are out of reach by any other means.
"

See above. For the gazzilionth time, no one has found a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam. Say it to yourself a few times until it sinks in.

"They are busy making decent lives for their families, giving them nice homes, safe cars and putting the children in private schools. Ignorant? While
you and I debate that which is out of our control, they take their own destinies into their grip and make it happen. "

Blowing up Iraq sure as # didnt decrease our threat of getting attacked again, it didnt make the world any safer. Hm..I have notices an increase in
the number of terrorist attacks since, and it wont be long before they come through our own borders. Our own poorly guarded borders.

The chances of a terrorist attack hitting us have increased now, with a weakened thinned out military, a military that belongs back home looking at
the welfare of its own.

Patroling our borders doesnt keep people locked in, it prevents people from outside coming in who are unwanted. Period. people still are free to
leave, they will just have one hell of a time getting back in.

Terrorism is less likely if we have military at home fending off threats from the outside.

Of course, that is, assuming you still believe 9/11 was caused by terrorists alone who acted without the aid or foreknowldge and complicity of the US
govornment.

It makes absolutely no sense going across the world to fight invisible enemies. Have we got bin laden? is bin laden the only terrorist leader out
there? you dont think there are more in existance who sleep in the shadows that cannot be struck by bombs, who are unknown the the feds? hm?

The WMD have been found already and we gave them to them. The War in Irag has been going on for years now, we just wanted to push it to the next
level and establish a bridgehead. It's as simple as that. Everyone knows the best defense is an offense better than your opponent. I would rather
have the fightin going on over there than here any day.

JohnNada: "quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by THENEO
you are finally experiencing what you do to others and that is ignore their arguments in favour of your own. How does it feel?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ahem...well all I've got to say is that you've got an absolute cheek to say that to him my friend. "

Didn't Saddam 'confess' to having WMD*?
* indicates that WMD needs to be defined.

Here's a bit of what he confessed: "In 1995 Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He
revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing
numbers of weapons in significant quantities--and weapons stocks. Previously it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once
Saddam's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.

Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of
botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM
inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production. . . .

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled
monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door, and our
people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. . . .

"The elite media continues to insist that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. attacked in March, citing the scant evidence of
any actual weapons finds by U.S. arms inspector David Kay.

But if it's true that Saddam Hussein was actually innocent on the WMD charge, then why did he confess in 1998 that his country had amassed huge
stockpiles of highly toxic weaponized poisons - along with the delivery systems to take them beyond Iraq's borders.

That's right - lost in the debate over why U.S. weapons inspectors have yet to uncover the Iraqi version of the Manhattan Project is this salient
factoid: Not only did Saddam's regime admit to possessing thousands of tons of lethal chemical and biological agents - Baghdad gave a detailed
inventory of their WMD arsenal to the United Nations.

This week's Weekly Standard revisits Baghdad's 1998 WMD mea culpa - complete with a laundry list of the frightening weapons that the press continues
to suggest were a figment of the Bush administration's imagination.

Just before Iraq kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, Saddam admitted he had:

• At least 3.9 tons of deadly VX nerve gas, along with 805 tons of precursor ingredients for the production of more VX.

• 4,000 tons of ingredients to produce other types of poison gas.

• 8,500 liters of anthrax.

• 500 bombs fitted with parachutes for the purpose of delivering poison gas or germ payloads.

Again, the above arsenal is NOT what U.S. or European intelligence suspected Baghdad had. These are the WMD's that Saddam himself admitted he had.

It's also worth noting that the overwhelming majority of the WMDs Saddam confessed to went completely undetected by U.N. weapons inspectors who
combed Iraq for 12 years.

Still, thanks to the media's five-month-long campaign to discredit the Iraq war - not to mention the horrible job done by the White House public
relations team - most Americans have no idea that questions about whether Iraq was in recent possession of WMD's have already been answered - and
answered by no less an authority than Saddam Hussein himself."

Just a thought here - I believe the Posse Comitas act forbids the deployment of US forces on US soil for police matters ?. Shurely the INS is a
Federal police agency ?.

But i have seen out cry here of the revocation of Posse Comitas on the grounds its NWO and "they are taking over" (albeit I dont recal any post from
you on this).

Its the revocation of Posse Comitas meant to strengthen homeland security ? - if so you are quite correct - and the troops could strengthen borders.
If it is for ulterior motives then perhaps these troops are better in Iraq - they would serve or could serve no purpose at home without revocation of
something people here seem to see as a "Holy Grail" of the beginning of the end times ?.

We in the UK thank god have no such prohibitions - and troops have and do serve in the control of terrorist activity.

Seekerof: The article you pasted says "But if it's true that Saddam Hussein was actually innocent on the WMD charge, then why did he confess in
1998..." when the actual article at the link says "But if it's true that Saddam Hussein was actually innocent on the WMD charge, then why
did he confess in 1991." Not sure how that happened...

Anyway, this is a perfect example of spin. What Hussein Kamel is quoted as saying is correct, but you ignore what you don't want to read.

"The debriefing of Iraqi defector Hussein Kamal, the text of which was obtained by WorldNetDaily, provides compelling insight into Iraq's nuclear
weapons program, as well as the nation's plans for enhancing the development of biological and chemical weapons. ..

The debriefing documents, from UNSCOM and the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, are labeled "SENSITIVE" and record discussions with Kamal
about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. The discussion occurred in Amman, Jordan, in 1995.

The documents describe Iraq as still possessing and hiding blueprints, microfiches and computer disks with plans for missile and nuclear weapons
programs. While Kamal states that most all of Iraq's WMD had been destroyed at that time, there are questions from U.N. staffers as to the lack of
evidence of such destruction, and Kamal admits that blueprints were kept as a first step to "return to production." Kamal is questioned on
Iraq's keeping of some elements of its missile program and chemical weapons program. He also is questioned on a mysterious reference to a nuclear
"final experiment," found by U.N. officials in Iraqi documents...

Despite being credited by U.N. officials with having a "legendary" memory, at key junctures Kamal says that he does not remember certain
details...

Kamal stated that the VX bombs were not used during the Iran-Iraq war and "the program was terminated." He added, "During the Gulf War, there was
no intention to use chemical weapons as the Allied force was overwhelming."

When questioned whether Iraq restarted VX production after the Iraq-Iran war, Kamal answered, "We changed the factory into pesticide production.
Part of the establishment started to produce medicine. … We gave instructions not to produce chemical weapons. I don't remember the resumption of any
chemical weapon production before the Gulf War. Maybe it was only minimal production and filling. But there was no decision to use chemical weapons
for fear of retaliation. They realized that if chemical weapons were used, retaliation would be nuclear. They must have a revision of decision to
start production. All chemical weapons were destroyed. I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons – biological, chemical, missile,
nuclear – were destroyed."

"The following passage referred to the purported destruction of such weapons:

Kamal: After visits of inspection teams. You have an important role in Iraq with this. You should not underestimate yourself. You are very effective
in Iraq. There was an engine for long-range missiles. I didn't want to get involved. It was a lost battle, and they chose to stop … using this.

Smidovich: We could not find any traces of destruction.

Kamal: Yes, it was done before you came in. The place where they buried them was found by you."

"Even more damning was the suppression of the testimony of Iraqi General Hussein Kamal, who defected from the regime in 1995. Kamal's testimony
was repeatedly cited as evidence of the extent of Iraq's WMD programs. For example, in a statement to the Australian parliament on February 4,
attempting to justify support for an invasion of Iraq, Prime Minister John Howard cited Kamal's post-defection debriefing by UN weapons inspectors.

Seeker: You just have to read the pdf at FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), which is a transcript of the interview with this guy Kamel who
you claim admits that Iraq had viable WMDs up to 2003.

He admits nothing even remotely close to that. He admits, on the other hand, that Iraq's WMDs are destroyed.

"Where Did All the Weapons Go?
Before the war, media overlooked a key story
By Seth Ackerman

If the media seem surprised by the U.S. military's failure, as of this writing, to find any hidden chemical or biological weapons in Iraq, maybe
it's because they virtually ignored a critical story that was lost in a flood of stories about the dangers of a chemically armed Saddam Hussein.
Weeks before the war began (3/3/03), Newsweek's John Barry published an account of a secret United Nations transcript recording the 1995 interview
between U.N. weapons inspectors and Iraq's highest-ranking defector, former weapons chief Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel.

For years, the story of Kamel's defection had been used by reporters, pundits and high-ranking U.S. foreign policymakers to prove that Iraq amassed
vast stockpiles of dangerous weapons. But in the transcript obtained by Newsweek, Kamel added a crucial qualifier: "All weapons--biological,
chemical, missile, nuclear, were destroyed."...

By the time the Bush administration began arguing for war, Kamel's story had become legend. Newsweek's story exploded the myth. Kamel did admit that
Iraq once had a biological weapons program, despite the regime's denials. But according to Newsweek, he also said that "after the Gulf War, Iraq
destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them." All that remained were "hidden blueprints, computer
disks, microfiches" and production molds....

The weapons were eliminated secretly in the summer of 1991, he said, in order to hide their existence from inspectors, and in hopes of someday
resuming production after inspections had finished. The CIA and MI6 were told the same story, Newsweek reported, and "a military aide who defected
with Kamel... backed Kamel's assertions about the destruction of WMD stocks."...

...When Newsweek's story appeared, during the height of the U.N. Security Council debate over weapons inspections, CIA spokesperson Bill Harlow
angrily denied it. "It is incorrect, bogus, wrong, untrue," he told Reuters (2/24/03). But two days later (2/26/03), a complete copy of the
Kamel transcript--an internal UNSCOM/IAEA document stamped "sensitive"--was obtained by Glen Rangwala of Cambridge University and posted to the
Internet...

...It's no wonder the CIA at first tried to deny the Newsweek story. By the time it was published, virtually every major foreign-policy official in
the administration had publicly cited Kamel's testimony to argue not only that Saddam was harboring a fearsome arsenal, but that inspections could
never work: Only defectors such as Kamel, the administration argued, can uncover Iraq's hidden weapons. Officials often used Kamel to cite
specific quantities of weapons, like anthrax and VX, that Iraq produced before 1991, without noting that according to the defector, these quantities
had been destroyed....

...George W. Bush himself declared in an October 7, 2002 speech: "In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's
military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly
biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of
biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions."

Secretary of State Colin Powell made use of the Kamel story in his widely hailed February 5 presentation to the U.N. Security Council. "It took years
for Iraq to finally admit that it had produced four tons of the deadly nerve agent, VX," Powell said. "A single drop of VX on the skin will kill in
minutes. Four tons. The admission only came out after inspectors collected documentation as a result of the defection of Hussein Kamel, Saddam
Hussein's late son-in-law."

Vice President Dick Cheney (8/27/02) warned that inspectors would be unable to find Iraq's weapons: Kamel's story "should serve as a reminder to
all that we often learned more as the result of defections than we learned from the inspection regime itself." Deputy National Security Advisor
Stephen Hadley wrote in the Chicago Tribune (2/16/03) that "because of information provided by Iraqi defector and former head of Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction programs, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel, the regime had to admit in detail how it cheated on its nuclear non-proliferation
commitments."...

...The media also treated Kamel as an authority on Iraq's weapons. In the four months prior to Newsweek's story, the defector was cited four
times on the New York Times op-ed page in support of claims about Iraq's weapons programs--never noting his assertions about the elimination of these
weapons. In a major Times op-ed calling for war against Iraq (2/21/03), Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution wrote that Kamel and other
defectors "reported that outside pressure had not only failed to eradicate the nuclear program, it was bigger and more cleverly spread out and
concealed than anyone had imagined it to be.""...

Clear enough? Our side (the reality-based NO WMD side) wins this debate. This was the house of cards most of the assertions were based on for proof
of WMDs.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.